Public Prosecutor v Abdul Qayyum Bin Abdul Malik

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Christopher Goh Eng Chiang
• Judgment Date: 11 May 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGDC 89
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No. 908524 of 2019 and Others, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9106 of 2021
• Published date: 20 May 2021
• Year: 2021
• Hearing Date: 03 May 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: Samuel Yap (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Lim Ghim Siew Henry (GS Lim & Partners)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing
• Citation: [2021] SGDC 89

District Judge Christopher Goh Eng Chiang: Introduction

This is an appeal against sentence by the Accused in person.

The Accused, who was then represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to three charges for importing drugs into Singapore under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) and punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA.

One other similar charge under s 7 of the MDA was taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing.

The Facts

The Accused admitted to Statement of Facts (“SOF”) without qualification. A summary of the facts is set out below.

Sometime in November 2017, the Accused met one male Malaysian known as “Jay” in Malaysia. “Jay” instructed the Accused to make three drug deliveries into Singapore using the Accused’s own Malaysian registered white motorcar (“the Car”). The Accused agreed to do so.

“Jay” informed the Accused that the drugs would be concealed near the dashboard area of the Car. The Accused was to drive the Car to a location in Singapore and leave the Car unlocked for someone to retrieve the drugs. The Accused successfully completed two such deliveries for “Jay”.

The third delivery took place on 7 November 2017. “Jay” informed the Accused that he, ie the Accused would be delivering “ice” (street name for methamphetamine) and, ecstasy to Block 11 Chai Chee, Singapore.

On 7 November 2017, at about 2220 hrs, officers from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (“ICA”) stopped the Accused for a routine check at the Woodlands Checkpoint (“WC”). ICA officers searched the Car and retrieved five black taped bundles which were concealed within the areas behind the speedometer and the dashboard. The Accused was then placed under arrest.

The five black taped bundles were cut open and the contents therein were sealed in separate tamper-proof bags and submitted to Illicit Drugs Laboratory of the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis.

A total of 13 certificates dated 28 February 2018 were issued under s 16 of the MDA stating the results of the analysis. The contents of the seized exhibits contained the following amount of drugs: not less than 18.17g of ketamine from one exhibit, the subject matter of DAC-908524-2019 (“the ketamine charge”); not less than 2.17g of MDMA from one exhibit, the subject matter of DAC-908525-2019 (“the MDMA charge”); and not less than 400.61g of methamphetamine from eleven exhibits, the subject matter of DAC-932997-2019 (“the methamphetamine charge”). The Accused was charged for a reduced charge of importing “not less than 249.99 grams of methamphetamine.”

Methamphetamine, ketamine and MDMA are Class A controlled drugs listed in the First Schedule to the MDA. The Accused was not authorised under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder to import any controlled drug into Singapore.

I found the Accused guilty and convicted him on the three charges for importing the drugs into Singapore under s 7 and punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA.

Antecedents

The Accused has no antecedents.

Submissions on sentence Prosecution’s submissions

The Prosecution sought a global sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane, broken down into the following individual sentences: Importing not less than 249.99g of methamphetamine: 25 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane (consecutive); Importing not less than 18.17g of ketamine: five years’ imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane (consecutive); and Importing not less than 2.17g of MDMA: five years’ imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane (concurrent)

As the Prosecution had submitted for the prescribed mandatory minimum sentences for the ketamine and MDMA charges, its sentencing submission related to the importation of methamphetamine

The sentencing submission for the methamphetamine charge was based on the guidelines laid down in Vasentha d/o Joseph vs Public Prosecutor [2015] 5 SLR 122 (“Vasentha”) and endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Suventher Shanmugam v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 115 (“Suventher”) at [28]-[31], in particular at [30] where the Court set out the indicative starting point for the unauthorised import or trafficking of cannabis:

Weight of Cannabis	Sentencing Range
330 to 380g	20 to 22 years’ imprisonment
381 to 430g	23 to 25 years’ imprisonment
431 to 500g	26 to 29 years’ imprisonment

The first step was to look at the weight of the drugs. The Prosecution submitted that the indicative starting point should be 29 years’ imprisonment as the amount of methamphetamine was just shy of the capital threshold of 250g.

The second step was to consider the Accused’s culpability. The Accused had co-operated with the authorities after his arrest. This resulted in two other persons being arrested. The Prosecution submitted that a downward adjustment to 27 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate.

As the ketamine and MDMA charges carried a mandatory imprisonment term of five years’ imprisonment and, that two of the three sentences of imprisonment had to run consecutively, pursuant to s 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, Rev Ed 2012) (“CPC”), the Prosecution proposed that, in view of the totality principle, the sentence for the methamphetamine charge should be adjusted downwards to 25 years’ imprisonment.

Mitigation plea

The following is a summary of the mitigating factors put forward by the Defence. Co-operation with the authorities. Upon his arrest, the Accused cooperated with the authorities. When his car was searched, the Accused received a call from “Jay”. He was late arriving at the rendezvous point and the person, one ‘Arab” whose job was to retrieve the drugs from his car had been waiting for the Accused for a long time. The Accused did not tell “Jay” that he had been arrested. Instead, as directed by the officers present, he told “Jay” that he was held up by traffic. He maintained communication with “Jay” as he was directed by where to meet “Arab”. He also managed to obtain “Arab’s” description from “Jay”. His actions led to the arrest of two persons and he later learnt that “ … Jay’s syndicate in Singapore was eliminated… ”.¹ He also informed the authorities where the drugs were hidden in the Car. Culpability. The Accused was only a courier “in the bigger scheme of events”. Remorse. The Accused had pleaded guilty and has vowed to turn his life around. He hoped to return home to his parents. The fact that he was originally charged with a capital offence was a frightening lesson which will remain deeply etched in his memory for the rest of his life.

The Defence “the minimum imprisonment sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment and 20 strokes of the cane on the charge in [the methamphetamine charge] and [the ketamine charge], and for the sentence in [the MDMA charge] to run concurrently”.²

Sentencing Considerations The punishment prescribed by law

For the methamphetamine charge, the offence attracts a mandatory minimum of 20 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane with the maximum sentence being 30 years’ imprisonment or life and 15 strokes of the cane.

Both the ketamine and the MDMA charges, attract a mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment and five strokes of the cane with the maximum sentence being 30 years’ imprisonment or life and 15 strokes of the cane per charge.

Arriving at the appropriate sentence

In Suventher at [30], the Court of Appeal endorsed the sentencing framework in Vasentha. This is as follows: determining the indicative starting point based on the quantity and type of controlled drug; make necessary upward or downward adjustments based on the offender’s culpability and any relevant aggravating of mitigating factors; and taking into account the time spent in remand, where appropriate.

The indicative starting point

In Adri Anton Kalangie v Public Prosecutor [2018] 2 SLR 557 (“Adri Anton Kalangie”), the...